I had an opportunity to observe this yesterday when I was out. Put a cyclist in black against a dark background or in low light and do the same with one wearing a bright colour. The one in black all but disappears.Why do people working on building sites or the railway wear high viz - Its so they can be seen.The evidence may relate to accident stats but what evidence is there of near misses or collisions avoided because cyclists were more visible.I can only comment on what I see - Like many others I prefer to cycle in bright colours, (an option endorsed by Cycling UK) so they could at least give me and other like me the option.

steady eddy wrote:I had an opportunity to observe this yesterday when I was out. Put a cyclist in black against a dark background or in low light and do the same with one wearing a bright colour. The one in black all but disappears.

Now put them against the more common steel grey sky with low sun and the one in black will stand out and the one wearing a "bright" colour will be difficult to see.

steady eddy wrote:Why do people working on building sites or the railway wear high viz - Its so they can be seen.

Building sites it's because people will be in unusual places and need to be seen by the likes of crane operators far away viewing unfamiliar situations from unusual angles, to reduce the risk of getting a panel or pallet put on their head.

Railways it's because the oncoming vehicle can't swerve and is difficult to stop so being able to see something along straight tracks at 2 miles away is better than only seeing it at 1 mile.

None of those reasons apply to roads and it's not safe to generalise across the domains. Who wears hi-vis on the roads? Roadworkers, street cleaners and bin collectors who mostly move at walking pace and I don't want to be confused with them by a driver who subconsciously thinks I'm near-static when really I'm moving at 20mph.

steady eddy wrote:The evidence may relate to accident stats but what evidence is there of near misses or collisions avoided because cyclists were more visible.

None whatsoever, but who can tell if it's because we can't have evidence of what doesn't happen or because there's no effect?

steady eddy wrote:I can only comment on what I see - Like many others I prefer to cycle in bright colours, (an option endorsed by Cycling UK) so they could at least give me and other like me the option.

If CUK is endorsing ugly clothes, they are not being evidence-led and I welcome the new look clothing as a step towards normalising cycling.

steady eddy wrote:I can only comment on what I see - Like many others I prefer to cycle in bright colours, (an option endorsed by Cycling UK) so they could at least give me and other like me the option.

If CUK is endorsing ugly clothes, they are not being evidence-led and I welcome the new look clothing as a step towards normalising cycling.

Steady eddy has an interesting definition of "endorsed", I feel. From the website:

Rule 59 [of the Highway Code] [...] advises cyclists to wear light coloured or fluorescent clothing "which helps other people to see you" in daylight and poor light, and "reflective clothing and / or accessories (belt, arm or ankle bands) in the dark".

The merits of reflective clothing and hi-viz are dealt with in our 10 common questions about cycling briefing, but in essence the research suggests that retroreflective accessories designed to make you more conspicuous in the dark, especially ankle straps that move when you pedal, are beneficial. Conversely there is very little evidence to suggest that hi-viz (as opposed to reflective strips and items) makes a significant impact on cyclists' safety. The research suggests that it may help drivers to spot pedestrians and cyclists more readily, but there was no evidence by how much and it was impossible to say whether that made them safer, as spotting them was one thing and driving safely around them another.

Unfortunately, whether or not the cyclist was wearing a helmet and hi-viz appears to be a priority within many press reports following collisions involving cyclists, a factor which can influence whether or not the police decide to prosecute a driver, and an issue raised in evidence in court proceedings to determine either cause of death, civil liability or criminal responsibility.

Accordingly, whatever Cycling UK's views may be regarding helmets and clothing being personal choices, and whatever the safety merits of either may be, the reality is that the rule 59 advice is often sadly used to deflect blame to the cyclist and, in relation to clothing, to attempt to explain why a driver either failed to see or failed to avoid hitting a cyclist. Strangely, it does not seem to apply in reverse, so if you hit a black car you can't blame the owner or manufacturer for their paint colour choice. It's apparently just cyclists in dark clothes who can't be seen.